Is religion/belief in a god inherently illogical

[36 Camera Perspective]

I also disagree with the inference that if the universe had a cause, then that cause must be god, given the plethora of tentative physical models from quantum gravity explaining the origins of the universe atheistically.

It might be a bit unrelated, but what is your take on infinite regression?

To be fully honest, the possibility of an actual infinite, which is central to the Kalam's second premise, is one of my weaker areas. I'm not much into mathematics, and whether or not an actual infinity can exist is an issue in the philosophy of mathematics. Cantor's set theory entails that an actually infinite set can exist, but the so-called "finitists" are keen to argue against that notion, and I haven't worked out the disputes between them. Getting around my mathematical grey areas, I would say there's a plausible argument for an actual infinite from (again) physics. There's the quantum eternality theorem, and QM models like Caroll-Chen, which, if true, entail that an actual infinity is real. I don't see any way that one could argue these models are physically impossible.

However, nobody disagrees that a potential infinite (think of the limit concept in calculus) can exist. For example, the universe is billions of universe old, and as time passes, the age of the universe will approach infinity (perhaps, never reaching it, depending on how the issue gets resolved). If one denies that T=0 corresponds to a real state of time (how can there be a time of zero time?), then the result would be a universe where, going back on its timeline, you would never actually reach a first instant of the universe's beginning. One might then say that, since every instant of the universe is preceded by another instant, there's no instant of the universe that a divine entity could cause.

[New Grestin]

Do people make these just to stir shit?

Hard to prove sure but that's rule breaking.

It's the usual bullshit people roll out for these kinds of threads.

Same shtick in Feminism threads, Islam related threads, etc.

[Quokkastan]

You mean the argument that conflates ex nihilo creation and material causation, and hopes you won't notice?

Because I don't consider that "great" outside of the context of "impressive that it's managed to fool so many people."

Well-tossed word salad.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the first premise. This refers to matter in motion. You would use it to describe something like a chair being assembled into the form of a chair.
"The universe began to exist" is the second premise. This seems to refer to ex nihilo creation. You would use it to describe something like a chair appearing fully-formed in the middle of the room.

These are not the same thing. Comparing the one to the other is not justified, especially since we're not exactly brimming with examples of the second. We don't know what the properties of ex nihilo creation might be, we cannot infer them from matter being reassembled into different forms.

[Jumalariik]

Considering the amount of great arguments for God, especially the Cosmological Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument, (which is kind of the same) I think that saying it's inherently illogical is silly. Anything that is logically consistent within itself is logical, which regardless of if these arguments are correct, both arguments are consistent within themselves.

You mean the argument that conflates ex nihilo creation and material causation, and hopes you won't notice?

Because I don't consider that "great" outside of the context of "impressive that it's managed to fool so many people."

Actually, looking at your later post, Id think this:

The rearrangement of matter is less impressive than the creation of matter. Considering that when the universe began to exist, (or before then) matter had to come into existence, there would be even more emphasis on that needing causation than matter being arranged.

[Godular]

Well-tossed word salad.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the first premise. This refers to matter in motion. You would use it to describe something like a chair being assembled into the form of a chair.
"The universe began to exist" is the second premise. This seems to refer to ex nihilo creation. You would use it to describe something like a chair appearing fully-formed in the middle of the room.

These are not the same thing. Comparing the one to the other is not justified, especially since we're not exactly brimming with examples of the second. We don't know what the properties of ex nihilo creation might be, we cannot infer them from matter being reassembled into different forms.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, if that's what you meant with your clarification.

[Quokkastan]

You mean the argument that conflates ex nihilo creation and material causation, and hopes you won't notice?

Because I don't consider that "great" outside of the context of "impressive that it's managed to fool so many people."

Actually, looking at your later post, Id think this:

The rearrangement of matter is less impressive than the creation of matter. Considering that when the universe began to exist, (or before then) matter had to come into existence, there would be even more emphasis on that needing causation than matter being arranged.

Isn't God more impressive than the creation of the universe?

By your logic he must need causation more than a universe.

[Quokkastan]

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the first premise. This refers to matter in motion. You would use it to describe something like a chair being assembled into the form of a chair.
"The universe began to exist" is the second premise. This seems to refer to ex nihilo creation. You would use it to describe something like a chair appearing fully-formed in the middle of the room.

These are not the same thing. Comparing the one to the other is not justified, especially since we're not exactly brimming with examples of the second. We don't know what the properties of ex nihilo creation might be, we cannot infer them from matter being reassembled into different forms.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, if that's what you meant with your clarification.

I didn't think you were. But you were right in pointing out that my post was a tad esoteric.

[Jumalariik]

Actually, looking at your later post, Id think this:

The rearrangement of matter is less impressive than the creation of matter. Considering that when the universe began to exist, (or before then) matter had to come into existence, there would be even more emphasis on that needing causation than matter being arranged.

Isn't God more impressive than the creation of the universe?

By your logic he must need causation more than a universe.

No.

The idea is that you cannot have an infinite regress of causation, and that you would need some sort of extra-ordinary original unmoved mover. Because God is by definition extra-ordinary, outside of regular rules of time and space, He would not need to be caused. Because the universe has rules, and one of them is empirically the need for causation, the universe would need causation.

[Godular]

I wasn't disagreeing with you, if that's what you meant with your clarification.

I didn't think you were. But you were right in pointing out that my post was a tad esoteric.

Actually, I was repeating my previous position that the cosmological argument and such were 'Word Salad'.

I apologize for the confusion.

[Renewed Imperial Germany]

Faith is, by definition, illogical. But ultimately whether or not faith in God is illogical is meaningless, because illogic is a staple of humanity.

[The Greater Gambia]

To me as an Athiest, I personally find the idea illogical when there's a lot of proof to the contrary. However, I have no problem with people being religious and sort of welcome it. It adds more diversity in life and makes way to different interpretations on seeing the world.

[Godular]

Isn't God more impressive than the creation of the universe?

By your logic he must need causation more than a universe.

No.

The idea is that you cannot have an infinite regress of causation, and that you would need some sort of extra-ordinary original unmoved mover. Because God is by definition extra-ordinary, outside of regular rules of time and space, He would not need to be caused. Because the universe has rules, and one of them is empirically the need for causation, the universe would need causation.

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Forgive me if it's a bit harder than that to build cred on the internet. There's no reason to posture: I'm an agnostic who doesn't accept the Kalam argument.

I can pull up old forum posts from some of my other internet accounts where I defend the Kalam, if that's what it takes. In any case, I'm being completely honest in stating that I once bought into the argument as sound. If someone doesn't believe me, that's alright. It's neither here nor there, ultimately, to the soundness of the argument.

But the Kalam argument is not primarily a claim about physics - it's a claim about metaphysics. It hinges critically on the impossibility of an actual infinite, not on some contingent facts about the Big Bang.

The Kalam does not "hinge" on the metaphysical impossibility of the infinite. One can affirm the second premise even while discharging this belief. It's completely consistent to believe that 1) it's metaphysically possible for the universe to be infinite and 2) the universe is nomologically (i.e. by physical law) finite.

This implies that 'god' is just an ad hoc hypothesis offered at the end of the cosmological argument, god-of-the-gaps-style. But it isn't: advocates of Kalam claim to be able to deduce God from the necessary properties of a First Cause.

Yes, I understand this. The inference I'm referring to is the syllogism "If the universe has a cause, that cause is god. The universe has a cause, therefore that cause is god". I don't accept the if-then statement, given the reasoning I stated.

These arguments do not explain the origins of the universe. They explain the origins of a physical iteration of the universe. The question is not 'why does the world exist as it does?', but 'why is there a world at all?'.

I'm unclear as to what you mean. Are you asking "What are the necessary conditions for these models to be possible?".

People like Lawrence Krauss are fundamentally confused about the parameters of this debate, because they don't understand philosophy. They don't understand that the question is not about how the form of being has changed over time, but about the conditions for the possibility of being-and-time as such.

I'm not going to cite Krauss, who I agree has been well-refuted.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

It might be a bit unrelated, but what is your take on infinite regression?

To be fully honest, the possibility of an actual infinite, which is central to the Kalam's second premise, is one of my weaker areas. I'm not much into mathematics, and whether or not an actual infinity can exist is an issue in the philosophy of mathematics. Cantor's set theory entails that an actually infinite set can exist, but the so-called "finitists" are keen to argue against that notion, and I haven't worked out the disputes between them. Getting around my mathematical grey areas, I would say there's a plausible argument for an actual infinite from (again) physics. There's the quantum eternality theorem, and QM models like Caroll-Chen, which, if true, entail that an actual infinity is real. I don't see any way that one could argue these models are physically impossible.

However, nobody disagrees that a potential infinite (think of the limit concept in calculus) can exist. For example, the universe is billions of universe old, and as time passes, the age of the universe will approach infinity (perhaps, never reaching it, depending on how the issue gets resolved). If one denies that T=0 corresponds to a real state of time (how can there be a time of zero time?), then the result would be a universe where, going back on its timeline, you would never actually reach a first instant of the universe's beginning. One might then say that, since every instant of the universe is preceded by another instant, there's no instant of the universe that a divine entity could cause.

In the murkiness of that area then, would a First Cause be a plausible principle? And if so, is God needed for that cause?

[Quokkastan]

Isn't God more impressive than the creation of the universe?

By your logic he must need causation more than a universe.

No.

He's not?

The idea is that you cannot have an infinite regress of causation, and that you would need some sort of extra-ordinary original unmoved mover. Because God is by definition extra-ordinary, outside of regular rules of time and space, He would not need to be caused. Because the universe has rules, and one of them is empirically the need for causation, the universe would need causation.

As stated, causation refers to matter in motion. For existing matter to take a new form, it must be acted upon. We've never seen matter spontaneously generate. Or, if we have, we've only seen it once, and it's the very thing we're arguing about. You cannot take the rules that apply to existing matter, and demand that they apply to the origin of matter without further justification. Doing so is exactly like demanding that causation must apply to God. And we know how you hate that.

[Jumalariik]

No.

The idea is that you cannot have an infinite regress of causation, and that you would need some sort of extra-ordinary original unmoved mover. Because God is by definition extra-ordinary, outside of regular rules of time and space, He would not need to be caused. Because the universe has rules, and one of them is empirically the need for causation, the universe would need causation.

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

[United Marxist Nations]

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

Yeah. Pretty much every philosophical theory is logically consistent within the context of itself.

[Wallenburg]

Insisting that something is true when there is no evidence to prove so is inherently illogical.

[Godular]

Unless time outside 'our universe' works on a loop.

Universe, CAUSE THYSELF.

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

To you, mayhap. The position I stated is neither more nor less valid than your unmoved mover notion. Keep in mind that this does not mean that the unmoved mover idea is valid in the first place.

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

Consistent only within the bounds of the parameters it sets for itself. Mayhap 36 could answer whether an argument with a poorly established foundation would still count as logical even if it obeys all the forms...

[Quokkastan]

Insisting that something is true when there is no evidence to prove so is inherently illogical.

Don't be ridiculous. I know in my heart Taylor Swift loves me.

She hasn't responded to any of my letters because she's shy.

[Shimazu Teikoku]

Don't be ridiculous. I know in my heart Taylor Swift loves me.

She hasn't responded to any of my letters because she's shy.

Are you SURE that you put on the right address?

[Jumalariik]

I don't know. Unmoved mover sounds more likely tbh

Basically you have to admit that it is logically consistent regardless of if it is true or not, making it logical.

Yeah. Pretty much every philosophical theory is logically consistent within the context of itself.

Making them by nature logical. If we knew all the facts then we wouldn't even need philosophy.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Consistent only within the bounds of the parameters it sets for itself. Mayhap 36 could answer whether an argument with a poorly established foundation would still count as logical even if it obeys all the forms...

I haven't read the entire conversation between you two, but an argument can be logical (i.e. valid) even with totally ludicrous premises.

1) I am pregnant or god is a duck.
2) I am not pregnant.
3) God is a duck.

Here's another funny example of what validity can do. Because any "or" statement is true if at least one of its variables is true, you can add anything onto a true statement. I can take"Obama is the President" and add "or Hillary Clinton is a space martian, or Donald Trump works for the CIA", and that would be a logically valid move.

[Neutraligon]

To be fully honest, the possibility of an actual infinite, which is central to the Kalam's second premise, is one of my weaker areas. I'm not much into mathematics, and whether or not an actual infinity can exist is an issue in the philosophy of mathematics. Cantor's set theory entails that an actually infinite set can exist, but the so-called "finitists" are keen to argue against that notion, and I haven't worked out the disputes between them. Getting around my mathematical grey areas, I would say there's a plausible argument for an actual infinite from (again) physics. There's the quantum eternality theorem, and QM models like Caroll-Chen, which, if true, entail that an actual infinity is real. I don't see any way that one could argue these models are physically impossible.

However, nobody disagrees that a potential infinite (think of the limit concept in calculus) can exist. For example, the universe is billions of universe old, and as time passes, the age of the universe will approach infinity (perhaps, never reaching it, depending on how the issue gets resolved). If one denies that T=0 corresponds to a real state of time (how can there be a time of zero time?), then the result would be a universe where, going back on its timeline, you would never actually reach a first instant of the universe's beginning. One might then say that, since every instant of the universe is preceded by another instant, there's no instant of the universe that a divine entity could cause.

In the murkiness of that area then, would a First Cause be a plausible principle? And if so, is God needed for that cause?

Cause makes no physical sense in this type of idea. For something to be caused the condition present prior would lead to the conditions present at the next instance in time. However at t=0 there is no prior instance in time, so there there is no way for anything to cause anything else. The universe can thus not be caused to exist.

[Jumalariik]

Consistent only within the bounds of the parameters it sets for itself. Mayhap 36 could answer whether an argument with a poorly established foundation would still count as logical even if it obeys all the forms...

I haven't read the entire conversation between you two, but an argument can be logical (i.e. valid) even with totally ludicrous premises.

1) I am pregnant or god is a duck.
2) I am not pregnant.
3) God is a duck.

Here's another funny example of what validity can do. Because any "or" statement is true if at least one of its variables is true, you can add anything onto a true statement. I can take"Obama is the President" and add "or Hillary Clinton is a space martian, or Donald Trump works for the CIA", and that would be a logically valid move.

So it would be a logical argument. I'm not saying that the cosmological argument is true (though I agree with it), I'm just saying that it's logically valid.